Re: Another POINTless Argument (was Re: Scatterguns and SMPs... and PDAF)

On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Allan Goodall wrote:

> Actually, you said that without a point system a game was unplayable. 

You need to take that within context. I was referring to our typical 
pickup games. I have literally yards upon yards of shelf space devoted
to 
games. I can barely manage one night a week for miniatures games (and 
that's only because I dropped RPGs as too time consuming). It's 
very likely we'll be playing an "off-season" game once every 6-12
months. 
At that rate it's impossible to maintain a good touch with the system.

> If you don't use identical forces, why
> do you need a point system? 

And you clipped my example which showed what for. To assign relative 
strengths. If you don't know which side is outgunned without trying, how

can you balance the scenario conditions?

> With a little experience with the game, you
> don't need the points.

I guess we disagree just how much experience is needed.

> You missed one thing. I agree with you with one caveat, a game IS
quite
> playable "out of the box" if you don't have experience in it and there
is no
> point system. However, it requires the game designer to include
SCENARIOS.

True enough. I just have a personal problem with scenarios. I want to 
have games I can play with the miniatures I own, not vice versa. While I

don't make a big fuss about Official(tm) minis, the visual appeal is a 
big point in miniatures games.

If I don't have, say, a lizard army, any scenario that calls for one is 
useless to me as I won't be fielding halflings and asking everyone to 
pretend they're scaly. It irritates me to no end not have a key figure, 
so I probably end up not playing.

This is of lesser impact in SF games, but even then number of figures 
available etc. can screw the setup.

> some systems are horrible. I've seen a number of systems that include
a
> point system but never show a scenario.

Yup, that's bad. 

> _Napoleon's Battles_ has no point system. Instead, the game comes with
a
> significant number of historical scenarios. 

...and it reminds me of computer games: "Once you've played through
these 
'till you're sick of them, we'll sell you a sequel using just some new 
data on the same engine." Or Avalon Hill's: "You've bought the game, now

buy the counters."

> >How's that different from picking an arbitrary unit size, e.g. "bring
a 
> >company's worth of troops"?
> 
> My point exactly. So why do you need the point system?

Brigades, companies, men, tons, tanks, planes, dollars, points...

You're counting beans anyway.

If you're counting anyway, why not count points? Point systems are (or 
should be) designed to cover "soft" factors other counting methods
simply 
ignore.

Take an invading army. One million soldiers. Tanks, planes, bombers, 
heavy artillery.  

Take defenders. 200 000 conscripts. Lack of military training. Virtually

no AT weapons, obsolete air force, not even uniforms for the men. 

That's the story the traditional figures tell.

Which side would you put your money on?

But I'm here because we won (don'cha hate the russkies for losing now?)

Traditional counting methods just don't cope with things like superior 
motivation and plain guts.

Say you just designed the above scenario, "Defense of the Winter
Planet". 
Are you going to play it several dozen times to see if the balance of
hard
numbers and soft factors is right? Or would you just let the players
have
a go at it, even if it turns out horribly one-sided? Would you hire a
seance to ask Fred T. Jane's opinion? 

A correctly done point system supplies you with the information no 
traditional counting method can.

Points DO have a bad habit of becoming the lord instead of the serf
they're supposed to be. But any other counting method can fall prey to
abusers just the same. 

If you're not counting, you're left with identical forces (gets boring)
or
scenarios (limited supply, not necessarily suited to available figures,
must pay for more). 

> Actually, you said that without a point system a game was unplayable.

...in my context. Rarely playing, with no first-hand input from other 
more experienced players.

> The game may need some tweaking to
> completely balance it, but I don't think it's hopelessly out of whack.

In essence, you're replacing the points system with your expertise. 
Though it helps that you're designing both forces and you're not
actually 
playing either of them. OR would you really give your guidelines to the 
players and let them design the ships themselves?

--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |